Rooks V J, Yancey M K, Elg S A, Brueske L
Department of Radiology, Tripler Army Medical Center, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.
Obstet Gynecol. 1996 Jan;87(1):27-9. doi: 10.1016/0029-7844(95)00336-3.
To compare the effectiveness of commercially available probe covers with less expensive condoms.
During a 10-month period, sonographers performed endovaginal ultrasound examinations on patients by randomly testing either commercially available probe covers or condoms on the vaginal probe. After use, the sheaths were tested for damage by filling them with water to observe for leakage and thereby determine the breakage rate.
Perforations were noted in 15 of 180 probe covers and three of 180 condoms (8.3 versus 1.7%, P < .05; relative risk [RR] 5.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4-18.5). Potential contamination of the endovaginal probe occurred during nine of 174 examinations and one of 178 examinations in which probe covers and condoms, respectively, were used (P < .05; RR 9.7, 95% CI 1.2-67.7).
Condoms are less expensive and superior to commercially available probe covers for covering the ultrasound probe during endovaginal examinations.
